I do wish we had more active, thoughtful conservatives. I can see how they can get scared away given the demographics involved here.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
I do wish we had more active, thoughtful conservatives. I can see how they can get scared away given the demographics involved here.
Aaron Strife
Banned
They'll probably hold the Senate if Obama wins, but it's going to be harder to win the House. What I (and many other Democrats) are hoping is that Obama's campaign can make Ryan the face of the GOP House and tether the fortunes of GOP House members to that of Romney's campaign. Ergo if Obama wins by 5 points, Democrats win by 5 points and probably enough to win the House back.
There are always voters who split their ticket for whatever reason - either they like their incumbent House member enough to keep them or they really believe divided government is the best solution (because that's worked so well these past couple of years). However every Republican House member voted in favor of the Ryan budget (save four) and that's a pretty big wedge issue.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Ditto with my friends and family. I would like to say that I stay pretty even-keeled, but the constant links don't do anything to advance conversation on policy. It just serves as a block of space to be quoted and high-fived about.
Then post more and help balance it out.
I'm sure we'd all love to debate the ins and outs of the Romney-Ryan policy plans just as soon as they decide what they'll be and whether to disavow them within days (hours) of defining them.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Uh, have you seen the way that conservatives are treated in this thread? We occasionally HAVE gotten intelligent conservatives, but they're pretty much always run out of town, if only for the fact that they're likely to feel attacked because they cannot possibly respond to all of the people that quote their posts and argue with them.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
web journalism. Exclusivity means the clicks.
You guys give yourselves too much credit. People aren't scared away, look at the non-poligaf political threads and you'll see lots of dissenting opinons, they just realize that this thread isn't one for open discussion. You guys are great (even Charlie Digital has mellowed since JD got perm'd) but not particularly open minded, which means trying to have an actual debate is generally tiresome to pointless especially now that we are in a wasteland never to be stumbled upon by outsiders.
There are times (generally early morning or odd numbered years) when some of the more bombastic lefties among you are probably sleeping or reading Howard Zinn that good conversation can be had but for the most part it's a wasteland for "thoughtful" discussion. If a good discussion does accidentally happen you'll have someone like GaimeGuy come in and start flaming, ruining it for everyone.
Strategy talk is still fun though!
Yeah, the dog-piling is troubling. However, maybe my memory is bad, but I don't remember many intelligent conservatives in this thread outside of Altered, Toxic, and Ez. Kosmo was the only other regular conservative and he's, uh...
edit: As for the people saying there's no intelligent discussion right now, I say there's not much room for it in elections. Elections are mind-numbingly stupid and full of complete bullshit. There's not much to talk about except strategy and pettiness and gaffes until someone actually gets into office.
What? You didn't like Drake's Fortune?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
The funny thing is that Kozmo was basically the mirror image of like 30% of this thread. Post a link from a site you like and pat yourself on the back for finding it. It'll probably include some meaningless gotcha and an out of context quote.
edited, 50% was not fair
I wouldn't argue with that. edit: I'm part of the 30%! WOOOOO!
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Definitely agree with this statement.
Kosmo never once backed down from an assertion, whether disproven or not. he just moved the goalposts or changed the subject. He never learned anything from facts. I have no idea what percentage of dogpilers had an identical approach, but the fact that we're talking about a 50% stat when referring to the most single most egregious false-equivalencer on the forum is kind of funny.
The media and entertainment are headquartered in (or at least spend a lot of time in) Manhattan. So you get their view of Jersey. This is the same reason you see so many taxis in movies, even in places where people never take taxis.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
You notice that Loudninja has become the new cntrational too. Though he isn't nearly as bad.
But I backed down from my assertion without ever being called out on it!
I also agree with Altered and EZ.
If there was a a more populous conservative voice in this thread to combat the vocal liberal voice, we'd have nothing but Huffington Post + TPM links rebutted with Drudge Report + Fox News links, and then arguments about how HuffPo/TPM may be biased, but they aren't as biase as Fox/Drudge, so this isn't fair, and so forth.
I'm not saying I even disagree with the notion that Fox/Drudge are worse (although I loathe HuffPo because it has the worst science reporting in the world, frequently reporting "alternative medicine" stories without fact checking). However, the discussion is so superficial that it would rapidly devolve in to list wars very similar to PS3/360 fanboy arguments over on gaming side. The only real difference is that this thread only has one set of fanboys, so the vitriol rarely has reason to ignite.
Policy focused discussion strikes me as much more interesting. What works? If so, why? What underlying value systems support different policies? Of course, those questions are very hard, and difficult to support, which is why I assume we don't see them very often. But it would be much more interesting as a frequent reader but only casual contributer.
If there was a a more populous conservative voice in this thread to combat the vocal liberal voice, we'd have nothing but Huffington Post + TPM links rebutted with Drudge Report + Fox News links, and then arguments about how HuffPo/TPM may be biased, but they aren't as biase as Fox/Drudge, so this isn't fair, and so forth.
I'm not saying I even disagree with the notion that Fox/Drudge are worse (although I loathe HuffPo because it has the worst science reporting in the world, frequently reporting "alternative medicine" stories without fact checking). However, the discussion is so superficial that it would rapidly devolve in to list wars very similar to PS3/360 fanboy arguments over on gaming side. The only real difference is that this thread only has one set of fanboys, so the vitriol rarely has reason to ignite.
Policy focused discussion strikes me as much more interesting. What works? If so, why? What underlying value systems support different policies? Of course, those questions are very hard, and difficult to support, which is why I assume we don't see them very often. But it would be much more interesting as a frequent reader but only casual contributer.
I agree as well about news link circle-jerking, but I think when the conversation is rooted in people's former or current love for the medium of video games, you're gonna have results skew liberal. No surprise there. If this were an off-topic community for iluvmyak47.com we'd likely see that 30% be drudge instead of tpm.
Normally I love more policy focused discussions, but we are heading into the big election "season" if you will, so it makes sense that most of this thread shifts its discussion toward politics as politics rather than policy.
As far as policy discussions, in my opinion EV usually sticks to substance with his thoughts regarding domestic tax policy, problem is, those thoughts don't really have an ideological challenger. So "optics" fill the void left.
Part of an overall political thread is going to be a link dump no matter what since soooooo much stuff is going on right now. It's just a question of where the links are coming from. A lot of the ot conservatives get piled on when they start posting blatantly false information. I
think we need more conservatives that "know there stuff".
think we need more conservatives that "know there stuff".
Generally I agree -- even though I disagree with a lot Conservative GAF, I make it a point to not jump in and join the dogpile. I know that there will be 20 other posters, who, mind you, are well meaning, but will rush to define the liberal counterpoint. Might as well skip to the next page at that point.
It doesn't take intelligence to have a discussion with EV, it takes infinite patience.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Another point about the HuffPo that Maddox (of the Best Page in the Universe fame) recently made - yes, he's still around, and no, he's not relevant anymore and is most definitely a shadow of his former self, retreading things that he did a decade ago, but he can still occasionally make a good point - is that it is very much a content leech site, designed to repost things written by other organizations with just enough commentary, however poor or ill-considered, to squeak past fair use laws.
This seems logical, but an attempt to remain even keeled seems appropriate. This does not mean setting up a false "fair and balanced" equivalency; but it does mean we shouldn't denigrate how terrible Drudge report is, and then immediately turn around and post a HuffPo piece without a shred of irony or self reflection.
I think many of the things we catch Romney or Paul or anyone else on are fairly superficial; while they can be egregiously wrong or offensive, we often also cite them for modest flubs or the sort of slight hypocrisies which are common place for all politicians of all stripes who need to appeal to multiple constituencies. Democrats do these too, but you'll rarely see Democrats being sharply condemned for vague messaging or conflicting statements.
empty vessel
Member
Compliment accepted.
I'm not sure it would even be possible to get PoliGAF even. I mean even aside from the fact that we're a video game forum, so that'll likely skew liberal to begin with, there's also the fact that this place takes a pretty hard lined stance on LGBT rights. I realize there are conservatives that exist that are fine with LGBT people, but Republicans that are fine with it are very very few and far between. It's hard to have an even narrative in a place where a small slip up defending one of the main planks in one of the parties could get you banned. The ones that do venture in here seem to get banned outside the thread for something else anyway, like Kozmo or A27.
What's funny about that?
Sirpopopop
Member
If you were actually interested in fostering a debate that would make someone change their mind on a topic, or 'learn from facts' you would adopt a different tone. Many of your posts are incredibly combative, which lead to the bunker down mentality. A poster may realize they are wrong on a point, but they'll double down on it simply because they think you are an asshole. It's the Amirox syndrome.
Yeah its really no point to do something like that.
eznark said:
eznark, Republicans still are 75% against gay marriage in virtually every poll that exists.
by definition, that means Republicans that support LGBT rights are few and far between
sorry buddy, the mystical world you live in where the Republicans that support that aren't few and far between does not exist
Even assuming that the policy objection equated 1:1 with a lifestyle objection 25% is hardly an insignificant number. We're at what, 12% African American population in America? Would you say that it is "very, very hard" to find a black person in America?
Sometimes I wonder if any of you guys have ever actually met a real life Republican or if your only exposure is via scary stories your parents told you before bed.
There are large organizations dedicated to Republican homosexuals. Pretending that it's impossible to even find one is ludicrous.
Sometimes I wonder if any of you guys have ever actually met a real life Republican or if your only exposure is via scary stories your parents told you before bed.
There are large organizations dedicated to Republican homosexuals. Pretending that it's impossible to even find one is ludicrous.
I'm mostly talking cheer leader type republicans, like some people here would be accused of being for democrats. Basically, I'm talking about the mirror images you guys are.
Even outside of that, I really struggle to come up with a single Republican I've ever met in real life that was fine with gay marriage or would last more than a few days here, especially if a thread on LGBT people came up...
Dude, I've met far, far more Republicans in my life than Democrats. The difference in numbers is staggering, actually. My entire extended family outside maybe 3 or 4 aunts/uncles are staunch republicans (for reference my dad has 11 brothers and sisters, and my mom has 3, so this isn't out of a small number). Nearly everyone that came into my mother's business growing up was a staunch republican, since we were from a small town. I went to high school with conservatives. Hell, I remember my teachers outright ragging on Clinton all day. I went to a private lutheran college that was EXTRAORDINARILY Republican. I barely started meeting actual democrats in my life until fairly recently.
The Librarian
Banned
He's talking about Republican politicians, I believe.
Yeah, no one is going to want to have a conversation with people who are going to talk down to them. When you call a conservative "stupid" or something similar, it doesn't matter what statistics or facts you have on your side, they aren't going to care because you're being condescending. A lot of the actions and signs from the Occupy Wall Street movement were pretty condecending, and being in West Virginia I see it from hardcore environmentalists all the time. While I agree with most environmentalist policy ideas, I don't think going to protest at a coal mine and yelling to the people working there about how they're terrible people is going to bring anyone to your side. If anything, it scares away people who are on the fence. It's hard not to be so confrontational sometimes, but playing nice goes a long way.
I live in rural middle of nowhere and I'm surrounded by them. Most of them hate gay people.
I live in rural middle of nowhere and I'm surrounded by them. Most of them hate gay people.
Like 90% of the Republicans I know (I live in TX and know plenty) are against gay marriage.
So there are almost as many pro-gay Republicans in your area as black people in America.
Optics!
Same here. But I suspect that the Texas/Louisiana/Mississippi/Alabama Republicans I've spent time with over the past two decades are wholly different political animals from, say, a Wisconsin or a New England Republican. The nasty, backwards things I've heard.. whoo..
Cocktail conservative.
If we're going to be this picky, 29% of the US identifies as Republican; 25% of that supports gay marriage; therefore, 7.25% of the country are Republicans who support gay marriage. That is slightly more than half the number of African Americans.
However, the general thrust of the point is the more important one than these petty calculations, I think. He's right that we are not supportive of anti-gay sentiment on this forum. There are no comparable positions that Democrats support for which we are equally as intolerant; that is, there is no liberal position which can in and of itself get you banned from this site like homophobia does. As such, even before considering that this is a video game forum or taking anything else in to consideration, a discussion between Republicans and Democrats would naturally weed out a huge number of Republicans just based on this policy position alone. What you'd be left with is... a large pool Democrats, libertarian leaning Republicans, and moderate Republicans. Which is, as it turns out, almost exactly what we see.
I live in Wisconsin. Again, I've never met a Republican that was for gay marriage. Never.
I think I've met a few independents who were for gay marriage, and may on occasion consider voting Republican, but never someone who was mostly a Republican voter. Hell, the democrats I knew growing up and around my hometown are/were mostly against gay marriage, too. They're just democrats mostly because they're in unions and are for unions.
Right, this is precisely what I was pointing to.
thezerofire
Banned
I'm the one of only two liberals in my whole family, and we're coincidentally the only ones for LGBT rights. And it helps that the other is gay.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I've met more republicans who support gay marriage than black people who support gay marriage, even if I count myself. Sucks being a member of a race of bigots
You guys are liars. Now get back to patting yourselves on the back with TPM links.
- Status